When the Israelites first saw the food that God had provided for them in the wilderness, it's the question they asked: “Manna” they shouted - literally, 'what is it?' The simplistic answer:of course, was that it was wafers of honey flavoured goodness! 
In truth though, it was so much more.

Whether we are in a place of paradise or a place of wilderness, when we taste the goodness of God, let's be quick to give thanks. Then stop. Look again. It wasn't just the salary at the end of the month, it wasn't just the quick recovery from that illness, it wasn't just His protection in that accident. It wasn't just the peace in that anxious situation.
Whether it is the kind word from a friend, the glimpse of a beautiful sunset, the scent of a summer flower, the melody of a memory-filled song, it was His grace, His mercy, His compassion, His presence, His provision, His promise.

Give thanks for all that it is.

The above is one of:

A. God judging wicked people
B. Samson's final victory
C. A Jewish suicide attack on a Palestinian place of worship

The above is one of:

A. God judging wicked people
B. Joshua's greatest victory
C. A statement from the prosecution at a War Crimes tribunal for genocide

If the above passages are actual events that God purposed, what conclusions would be reasonable to make about what God is like?

• That he holds people culpable, even if they are women and children, who were not responsible
  
• That he is focussed on temporal life rather than eternity; judgement is in the here and now
  
• That he judges his 'favourites' with a different standard to other people
  
• That he lacks self-control, lashing out with disproportionate anger on powerless people
  

Given that this isn't a fully Biblical view of Him, then;

A. Somehow, the obvious conclusions are inappropriate
B. Our less harsh view of God is wrong, he is as described in the conclusions
C. The passages are not intended to be understood as literal, historical fact

Discuss.

I was thinking about this verse from John's gospel the other day. It struck me afresh that it uses the past tense - the darkness has not overcome it. All of us face uncertain futures and it seemed odd, maybe even unhelpful, to be talking about the past rather than victory ahead. It kind of left me hanging - the darkness has not overcome it - yet.... Great about the past, but what about what lies ahead?

But the truth is that darkness has already done its worst, already got as dark as it can. The darkest moment of history is in the past - and light won. It made me think of John - as he sat writing those words, decades after Jesus had gone to the Father, I wondered what dark moments he had in mind that the light had won over?

At the start, he was known as a 'son of thunder', dark mood clouds had circled over him, perhaps leading to anger, to despair and Jesus had patiently shone until the light won. From son of thunder to beloved of Jesus. From angry young man to the compassionate disciple. From ambitious zealot to the carer of Mary. In his personal life, John had many times of darkness, many opportunities for darkness to 'take possession' of him (the literal translation of 'has not overcome'). Yet each time his testimony was simple. It was tough, it was challenging, it looked dark. But the darkness didn't win, light did.

And of course John was able to reflect on more than his own life. He could track back the entire history of his people. When Terah stopped heading towards the land of promise because of the darkness of his grief, light won and Abraham completed the journey. When the darkness of slavery threatened to overwhelm, even though it took 400 years, light won and Moses led the people out. When the darkness of disobedience threatened to take possession of God's plan, even though a generation would die on the wrong side of the Jordan, still light would win and Joshua would lead the people in. When the darkness of the people's hearts led them to ask for a King, even though it broke God's heart, yet, through a man after His own heart, light would shine to the nations through Israel. Even when justice required that darkness be allowed to exile the people, the light of an obedient few, Daniel and his friends, would leave a legacy that would shine for 400 years. When the darkness of rules had replaced the light of relationship, when legalism threatened to take ownership of people's hearts, Magi would see light and come to Bethlehem.

And in that context John wrote of the one they came to see 

And his gospel would poignantly tell of that most darkest of times - when the light of the world was extinguished, when supernatural darkness fell over the earth for three hours. When the one who was light. who called light into existence at the foundation of the world, absorbed into His own being every darkness in history. Despair, loneliness, hatred, sickness, violation, abuse, false imprisonment, demonic possession, death itself. 

And at first light on the third day, he seals the story. The darkness has at no point, not ever, not even for the briefest moment, overcome the light. Jesus, light of the world is alive, death and darkness could not hold him even then. 

It means that there is no act of darkness that has happened to you or that can happen to you, that light has not already defeated. Darkness takes your job, eroding confidence and raising anxiety. Light has already defined who you are and guaranteed provision. Darkness creates misunderstanding and a break of relationship. Light already exposed truth and forgiveness flows, deepening the relationship. Darkness brings sickness and perhaps even death. light has already guaranteed resurrection. 

There will have been dark times, there may yet be dark times ahead. Nobody, including John would suggest that is anything but painful. By the time he wrote his gospel, his best friend and all of that first group had been murdered. He himself was in exile and close to the end of life. He wrote this.

I tweeted what I thought was a brilliantly funny play on words (ok, so mildly amusing might have been closer...) It asked if a watertight theological argument could be described as 'hermeneutically sealed'. Brian Jose asked the important question: 

or as I've rephrased in the title of this post, 'how do we know how to interpret scripture?  Interestingly, I'd just had the same discussion with Alan Jones so thought it might be helpful to write some thoughts to stimulate discussion...

2 Tim. 3:16 tells us that all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. That seems a first key - if you know what something is for, it makes it much easier to interpret. If you have a Haynes manual for a Ford Focus you know what it's useful for. You're not going to use it for cooking recipes. You're probably not even going to use it to fix your Dacia Logan even though it is also arguably a car. And knowing what it is useful for saves a whole lot of potential confusion as to interpretation. You're not going to read a part of the manual and meditate on the existential meaning of the word 'axle'. You're not going research the original language or cultural importance of the word 'bonnet' as opposed to 'hood'. 

All good then, we know what scripture is profitable for. Firstly, it's for teaching. But teaching about what? Physics? Cosmology? History? Hygiene? Religious ritual? Because for sure it seems to refer to all of these and more... Well, no. None of the above. That's clear because it goes on to say what else it is good for: Reproof (pointing out when we made a wrong choice), Correction (showing us the way to back to the right route when we made a wrong choice) and training in righteousness (how to make right choices).

In short, scripture is useful when we use it to show us the way, to train us in how to identify and courageously choose the right way and for pointing out when we did neither. Which probably means it's not very useful for science, or history or archaeology or fixing the Dacia Logan.

But the key to interpretation probably lies in how we understand 'inspiration' . If we think it means that God wrote the words by proxy, by putting the precise words he wanted into the mind of the authors, then interpretation will be a matter of understanding what the words meant in the original language and culture. Such tools as word counting, cross referencing by word or phrase, analysis of linguistics and dissection of text will be important to arrive at a coherent understanding of the whole message. In such a view of inspiration, exactness, precision and a scientific, forensic approach would be appropriate; certainty should be achievable.

If we don't think that's what inspired means, then the tools and framework will be different. What if God didn't control the authors in quite that precise way? What if He used fallible people, themselves on a journey towards wholeness and understanding? What if He inspired them to write in the sense that he gave them the encouragement, the sense of urgency, the subject matter in general? But yet gave them the freedom to express the thoughts and words out of their own knowledge of God, and through their own personality? What might be an appropriate means of interpretation then? Well, along with language and culture, now we need to know what biases the individuals might have brought to their writing. We need a mechanism for sorting out what is true from God's perspective as opposed to what the writer thought was true from His growing but flawed understanding.

Well, which is it? The first is very attractive. It takes account of God's omnipotence; for sure he could have done it that way, he is powerful enough! It's also very attractive in that it should lead to certainty. Once the words and their meaning have been agreed, the way should be unambiguous. It appeals too to the 'modern' worldview which many of us oldies still have an affinity for; scientific, logical, certainty.

However, that doesn't seem to be the way the Bible was written.... detailed analysis supports what most people sense when they read it. The author's personalities shine through. There are human differences of perspective as well as differences of fact. It sounds for all the world like Godly people (for the most part) got inspired and wrote down their best recollection or their best research, or their best understanding of what was true. But like the rest of us, they were on a journey, had a heap of baggage and tradition, were somewhat trapped by their own pain / worldview and prone to mis-remembering. 

Of course God could have overwritten those bits and for sure he has guided the collection of the writings we have to be the best, least problematic set possible. But to have taken control of people in order to write specific words, or even to so inspire them that they had in effect no choice as to what to write would be to contradict the clear things that the Bible says about Him! It says He is love and love it declares 'does not insist on its own way' (1 Cor 13). Indeed the Bible says that control is like witchcraft. It calls us to be self-controlled, but never to control others. 

The evidence, I suggest is that the Bible is not a hand-written by God document, but rather a God inspired collection of fallible documents written by fallible people. Woah! Where does that leave us then? Anyone can make it say what they want, just leave out the bits they don't like, major on the bits that suit them... that's crazy! Well, sorry to say, but isn't that what happens anyway? Isn't that why we have 66 books including two distinct histories and three synoptic gospels plus a fourth to keep us in line with what they mean? Isn't that why we have The Holy Spirit to 'guide us into all truth' rather than a library of commentaries?  And ultimately, isn't that why we have Jesus?

When the disciples were trying to work out what was true - their traditional 'Biblical' understanding or the radical new interpretation Jesus was living, they asked Him: "Show us the Father". And here in my view is the key. He said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. In other words, our view of what God is like is embodied, not in a series of texts, but in the person that they point to. The answer to Brian's erudite question I think is this. We need a Christo-centric hermeneutic. A Christ centred interpretation of scripture. We can't truly understand it without understanding the person of Jesus. If the Bible is a jigsaw puzzle of thousands of pieces then we need a good picture on the box to tell us how to put it together. The picture is Jesus.

Ok, I know, I can hear the avalanche of 'woolly liberal' epithets headed my way... please do comment, but keep it clean, yeah? Now, where's that Dacia Logan manual, I need to understand Revelation 2...